Re: Do we support ioprio on SSDs with NCQ (Was: Re: IO schedulerbased IO controller V10)

[Jens Axboe]

On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> Moreover, I suggest removing also the slice_resid part, since its
> >> semantics doesn't seem consistent.
> >> When computed, it is not the residency, but the remaining time slice.
> >
> > It stands for residual, not residency.  Make more sense?
> It makes sense when computed, but not when used in rb_key computation.
> Why should we postpone queues that where preempted, instead of giving
> them a boost?

We should not, if it is/was working correctly, it should allow both for
increase/descrease of tree position (hence it's a long and can go
negative) to account for both over and under time.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/